Quote:This lens has no aperture ring... B)
And being surprised "how they managed to get everything so wrong" - come on, doing it exactly differently will attract all people who see Canon cameras as piece of loveless formed plastic chunk. Obviously there must be enough people who like ugly cameras.
No aperture ring???... How backwards do you want it to be?
I once tried making love with a lady Canon shooter.......turned out she was a left hand thread! :blink:
I need an aperture ring!
Especially if it's one like on a Fujinon. You just need to place yourself in the wind in the right direction and it blows a different aperture in. This is the random aperture I always was looking for.
While on Nikon you need motorized wheels to come through all these 1/3 stops and you're busy for a while if you want to close aperture down (that will teach you next time not to mess around with manual settings, ha, those wheel are only for the look and feel), at Fuji is a flip with your fingernail.
And I don't need any sexistic comments about Canon shooters. Some of them appear to be human.
12-16-2016, 11:29 AM
(This post was last modified: 12-16-2016, 11:29 AM by obican.)
While on Nikon you need motorized wheels to come through all these 1/3 stops and you're busy for a while if you want to close aperture down (that will teach you next time not to mess around with manual settings, ha, those wheel are only for the look and feel),.
That's why I usually set the camera for 1/2 step exposures, it becomes much faster to dial in what you want. However, Sony doesn't care about that when you turn the Exposure Compensation Dial on the right hand corner. Since that dial is in 1/3 steps only, camera switches back to 1/3 step mode. Probably same thing if you happen to have a lens with 1/3 aperture ring.
If you happen to have a Canon 85/1.2 mounted on your A7, you can set the aperture at f/1.2 only if you have selected 1/2 step increments. When you apply exposure compensation, it's f/1.3.
Quote:Yo mean, because they run out of numbers for professional APS-C bodies? No prob, in time they need to do the research if it could be already the time to dip a (less useful) toe into the mirrorless pond, they will not throw out a D510. So, they don't need to think about before the next, say, 5 years or so <_<
Using (self-explaining) numbers to qualify a product will sooner or later lead into dead-end
It used to be OK. In the film era, F50 was low end, F100 was almost high end end F5 was the top model. You could take a look and see where in the product hierarchy it's supposed to be. Before those series, F-401 was the bottom and F-801 was the highest, except for F4.
Digital went in the same for a while. D70, digital cousin of F70. Then came D80, which was actually same camera, updated. D90, same deal. There were D100 and D200 but D90 was actually a better camera than D100 but you couldn't see that in the model number. Then came D5000, is it supposed to be better? How about D600? Is it the new version of D500? No? Is a D7000 with a FF sensor called D700? No it's not? Oh that's what a D600 is. But come on, D750 has to be the followup camera to D700. It's not? WTF is it then? Is D300 a cheaper D500? Still no? How can you make any sense of all these things?
You don't get it, obican: To make sense out of those names you first need to take care about differences. So you'd enter first fanboy step: reading. The second, read again because of all wrong conclusions. At step ten you already invested so much time in getting the differences straight, that you need to wash twice to brush off all forum dust. But now you need to buy the cameras you learnt so hard to define. End of consumer freedom and what every marketing department is lusting for.
I mean, come on: Pentax with their characters/numbers mixture, Olympus, Fuji, Sony with half a dozen "new" models per week (or was it day?) - whereever you look at, they want to make something different in naming / numbering and at the end it's all the same confusion. Nikon even tried another confusion with D3, D3x, D3s, D4s (but no D4x) and so on. Does it matter? Is it more important than the pictures? Speaking if that, how many of us have a naming process for the pictures and how many just leave the numbers?
12-16-2016, 12:09 PM
(This post was last modified: 12-16-2016, 12:27 PM by obican.)
I have no idea about Oly or Pentax but Fuji naming system is better than most. T means slr-style do it all, Pro means wannabe-Leica, E means less-wannabe-Leica and 100 means lens is fixed. More digits mean cheaper model, as in X-T1 vs X-T10. Bigger number means newer model like X-E2 vs X-E1. The internals are mostly the same among different body styles, Fuji models vary in external ergonomics.
The problem is, X-E2 is same as X-T1 but there is also a X-T2, which is definitely not the same thing as X-E2 but is the same thing as X-Pro2.
Sony is also relatively easy. If the number begins with something smaller than 6, it's junk. Otherwise bigger the number, better the camera. They got it from Minolta, where it used to mean 8&9 are pro-grade, 6&7 are cheaper all arounders and sometimes more capable than 8&9, lower numbers are beginner junk but 5 are still mostly alright.
Canon probably has the best naming system since they went EOS in the 80s.
12-16-2016, 02:08 PM
(This post was last modified: 12-16-2016, 02:09 PM by mst.)
I hope you don't mind if I bring this topic back to the Nikkor... because I'm having a hard time right now figuring out if there was a silly mistake in the test setup or the analysis, which I fail to see, leading to too-good-to-be-true results, or if this is simply by far the hottest glass I've ever handled...
I think it's supposed to be that way. Some reviewers have reached to the same conclusion as I've seen.
Still in the wrong mount.
Quote:I hope you don't mind if I bring this topic back to the Nikkor... because I'm having a hard time right now figuring out if there was a silly mistake in the test setup or the analysis, which I fail to see, leading to too-good-to-be-true results, or if this is simply by far the hottest glass I've ever handled...
Maybe they've found the same long forgotten keg of fairy dust that they infused the 14-24/2.8 with...